Sequestration, the odd term for automatic budget cuts, seems almost certain to take effect on March 1 unless there is a last minute "Come to Jesus" moment. Thank goodness the furloughs don't start instantly. From Government Executive:
Federal employees will not feel the immediate impact of sequestration, should automatic budget cuts set to go into effect March 1 take place, an Obama administration official said Thursday.
Office of Management and Budget Controller Danny Werfel told the Senate Appropriations Committee that union negotiations would start on March 1, if sequestration hasn’t been averted, and most federal employees would not receive furlough notices until mid-March.
“Will the furloughs take place on March 1st?” Werfel asked himself rhetorically. “No, because of legal requirements,” referring to the need to bargain with unions and provide 30 days notice to employees.
OMB clarified on Friday that Werfel was referring specifically to Defense Department civilians when setting April as the earliest possible start date for sequestration furloughs. The Obama administration is leaving open the possibility furlough notices could be sent out to non-Defense feds before March 1.Below is a letter that then Commissioner Michael Astrue sent to Senator Mikulski concerning the sequester. You can click twice on each page to view at full size. It appears to me that Astrue was understating the effects of sequestration on Social Security. I don't see how the agency avoids widespread furloughs. We won't have to wait long to find out. If furloughs are coming, Social Security will have to notify the employee unions and begin negotiating with them pretty much immediately after sequestration begins on March 1.
Update: Let me respond to a persistent misunderstanding. Social Security benefits are exempt from sequestration. Social Security's administrative budget, the budget that pays employee salaries and that pays for rent and electricity and paper clips and all the other goods and services needed to keep the Social Security Administration operating, is very much subject to sequestration
According to the articles I have read, I thought Social Security was supposed to be spared from sequestration cuts. Am I mistaken?
ReplyDeleteThe "Come to Jesus" moment begins when congress and the president understand you cannot spend yourself to prosperity and act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteThere are NO real cuts, they are talking about reductions in the amount of increases. Plus the idea for the sequestration came from Obama's people, now he is running around saying terrible it is going to be if the Republicans don't act.
ReplyDeletelot's of smoke, no fire. Much like the so-called "fiscal cliff", this is just a political game of chicken. Like before, they'll just punt the ball without making any real decision.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, spending needs to decrease and taxes need to increase. Each party is holding steadfast to the idea that one of those can't happen. Who loses...citizens. Who wins...pundits that get to spend time talking about it.
You cannot cut yourself to prosperity, and everyone agrees sequestration will hurt the economy. Boehner stated he got 98% of everything he wanted in the negotiations last year and he was taking credit for the sequestration idea. As it draws close he is trying to blame it on others.
ReplyDeleteI've been on google all morning trying to find a country that cut their way to prosperity. I'm coming up blank. I'm guessing that's because no country has ever cut their way to economic prosperity. On the flip side, numerous countries have spent their way to prosperity.
ReplyDelete"I've been on google all morning trying to find a country that cut their way to prosperity."
ReplyDeleteTry finding a country (government) that spent their way to prosperity.
President Obama on the sequester cuts
ReplyDeleteNovember 21, 2011
Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2521931
Worse than sequestration is the loss of worker productivity talking about, and the expense and time wasted by managers having to prepare for it.
ReplyDeleteWhat a total waste of government resources and taxpayer funds. I suspect alot less real work is getting done at SSA lately because of this political circus.
Non-Event. Can kicked self created crisis averted,and the spin doctors go to work. Yawn.
ReplyDeleteClearly taking credit for the sequester, here's a PowerPoint presentation that Boehner developed with the Republican Policy Committee and sent out to Capitol Hill GOP on July 31, 2011. Intended to explain the outline of the proposed debt deal, the presentation is titled: “Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable.”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/the-powerpoint-that-proves-it-s-not-obama-s-sequester-after-all.html
At a CLE today, a regional chief ALJ stated Astrue had been anticipating the sequester happening, and hehad reduced overall spending this fiscal year and saved up a signficant amount of his budget so he could tap into it if sequester happened. If sequester did not happen, he said Colvin would have extra money to send on hiring, overtime, and IT infrastructure. So it sounds as if the sequester will not hurt SSA as bad as other agencies.
ReplyDeleteSSA continues to spend on travel, fluff, furniture & items not needed, overtime, reemployed double dipping annuitants...never ends..."mandatory" training on diversity, harassment, fluff items eat up production time.
ReplyDelete